In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00313-CR
MICHAEL DENNIS O’CONNOR, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 372nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 1863313, Honorable Julie Lugo, Presiding
July 22, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Michael Dennis O’Connor, appeals from the trial court’s judgments
convicting him of engaging in organized criminal activity and two counts of theft.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders2 brief and a motion to
1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to the
Supreme Court of Texas’s docket-equalization procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. We apply the precedent of the transferor court to the extent it differs from our own.
2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). withdraw. Because our independent review confirms that no arguable ground for appeal
exists, we grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
BACKGROUND
A Tarrant County grand jury indicted Appellant on one count of engaging in
organized criminal activity, with the predicate offense of aggregated theft of property
valued at least $30,000 but less than $150,000,3 a third-degree felony, theft of property
valued at least $2,500 but less than $30,000,4 a state jail felony, and engaging in
organized criminal activity,5 a third-degree felony. The indictment also contained a
repeat-offender notice alleging a prior felony conviction for burglary. Appellant entered
open pleas of guilty to each count and pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph. The
trial court ordered a presentence investigation report and set the matter for a punishment
hearing.
At the punishment hearing, the trial court sustained Appellant’s objections to two
portions of the presentence investigation report that referenced unsubstantiated claims
of profit and admitted the remainder. The State presented evidence about a series of
multi-state thefts of handheld scanning devices. After hearing the evidence and argument
of counsel, the trial court found Appellant guilty on each count, found the enhancement
allegation true, and assessed concurrent sentences of five years of confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.
3 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.03(a), (e)(5).
4 See id. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A).
5 See id. § 71.02(a)(1), (b).
2
ANDERS REVIEW
When court-appointed appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the
record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything
in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel
must also serve the client with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw and must
inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary
review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court, in
turn, must independently examine the record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issue
exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Counsel’s brief satisfies these requirements. It offers a professional evaluation of
the record and explains why no arguable ground for reversal exists. High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
406 n.9. Counsel has certified that he provided Appellant with copies of the brief, the
motion to withdraw, and the appellate record, and that he informed Appellant of the right
to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant has not filed a response.
Our independent review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The indictment tracks
the language of the applicable statutes and vested the trial court with jurisdiction. See
TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 71.02(a)(1), 31.03(a), (e)(5), 31.09; State v. Yount, 853 S.W.2d 6,
8–9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The record reflects that Appellant’s guilty pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences. Each five-year sentence falls within the
applicable statutory range after the enhancement findings: first-degree for the organized
criminal activity count and second-degree for the theft counts. The sentences are not
constitutionally disproportionate, and no jurisdictional defect or preserved error appears
on the record.
Finding no arguable ground for appellate review, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.6
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
6 Within five days from the date of this court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to Appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35.
4